MA S TER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-80599-13 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 


RADFORD,  ROBERT  S 


TITLE: 


NOTES  ON  LATIN 
SYNIZESIS 

PLACE: 

CHICAGO 

DA  TE : 

[1 908] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


DIDLIOCRAPHIC  MICRnFORM  TARCFT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


BKS/PROD   Books        FUL/BIB    NYCG92--B31839 
Record  1  of  0  ~  Record  added  today 


T 


lD!WYCG92~B3ia39 
CC:966B   BLTiam 


#     w  J»  ?s> 


DCFfi? 

IMTs? 


CSC  I? 

G P Ci  f\ 
REP  if 


MOD ;  ' 
B 1 0  :  -^ 


FRMn 
BNR: 
F I  C  n  '^ 
FSI:? 
COL ; 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


1 00  1 

245  10 

260 

300 

LDG 

QD 


Acqu  i si t ions 


MYCG-PT 


Lseng 

PD :196s/ 

OR:     POL:      DM:      RR 
IMNC--  f  rNWC 
Radford,  Robert  S, 

Notes  on  Latin  Syn  i  ;:!es  is- f  hCmt  crof  or  ml  • 
ChicK^go,  =:|  bUniversi  ty  of  Chicaqo  Press,  ~  1  {-['  l  908] 
I"  153:1 -IAS  p. 
ORIB 
05 -06 -9 2 


ri3 :    EL. 
ATCs 
COM  5? 
I L  C : : 
E;>!L  s 


•-\  '-> 


n  /•;,  /t  , ., 


AD: 
LJD  : 

1 1  : 
GEN  s 


05-06-92 
05-06-92 


o 


BSEi 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

//  X 


REDUCTION     RATIO: 


FILM     SIZE: }AZ2S22- 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA    (©    IB     IID 

DATE     FILMED: iLlJLi.li^ INITIALS__:>>:_j)  C 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


r 


Association  for  Information  and  image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 

lyiiiijiiiiiiiiiiniiiiuiiilii 


TTT 


Inches 


1 


iliiiiliiiilimjim 


IIIIUIIIIJIIIU 


8        9       10 

iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiili 


TTT 


n 


1.0 

U^      2.8 

1^     ||3-2 

lA     11^ 

li. 

1.4 

2.5 
2.2 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

I.I 

1.25 

mi 


12       13      14 

iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 


TTT 


15   mm 


m^ 


MONUFOCTURED   TO  RUM  STONDRRDS 
BY  fiPPLIED  IMfiGE,    INC. 


« 


€^ 


>^ 


"ii" 


i 


y  t 


aAJo-^-  /7x>i 


OX/i 


wtmrnttatm 


/1\n  1/f^     7T^  4^-1/«^^^:'    ,,s2,xX>.«ea<2_/xj2-_^ a- -r- '^ 


Notes  on   Latin  Synizesis 


ROBERT  S.  RADFORD 


'I 


Reprinted  from  Classical   Philology,  Vol.   Ill,   No.   2,  April,   1908 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS,  CHICAGO 
ForeieJi  Agents:    London:    Luzac  &  Co.;    Leipzig:   Otto  Habrassowit2 


J 


If  I 


'}  M  ?*& 


I. 


NOTES  ON  LATIN  SYNIZESIS 

By  Robert  S.  Radford 

THE    RELATION    OF    OLD     LATIN    SYNIZESIS    TO    THE    SENTENCE- 
ACCENT 


There  is  no  more  familiar  phenomenon  in  the  verse  of  the  early 
Latin  dramatists  than  the  quantitative  reduction  of  words  which 
show  a  vowel  in  hiatus,  e.  g.,  eoSj  eorum,  deos,  deorum^  fui, 
fuisfi\  yet  the  precise  manner  in  which  this  reduction  has  taken 
place  is  still  a  matter  of  discussion  among  philologians.  Accord- 
ing to  some  critics,  iambic  shortening  is  the  real  influence  at  work 
here,  and  we  should  pronounce  eos,  edrum,  dedrnm,  etc. ;  accord- 
ing to  others,  a  slurring  of  the  first  of  the  two  vowels  has  taken 
place,  and  we  have  to  recognize  in  the  treatment  of  such  cases 
that  procedure  which  is  commonly  termed  by  the  ancient  metri- 
cians synizesis  and  by  Romance  scholars  diphthongalization.^ 
The  latter  explanation,  which  finds  strong  support  in  the  synizesis 
phenomena  of  many  other  Indo-European  languages,^  has  always 

commended  itself  to  the  majority  of  Plautine  students,  but,  in 
becoming  its  exponents,  the  latter  have  usually  been  content  to 
employ  the  term  'synizesis'  in  too  vague  and  indefinite  a  sense. 
This  word  has,  in  fact,  a  somewhat  variable  meaning,  and  the 
three  great  periods  of  the  Roman  language,  viz.,  the  Old  Latin, 
the  Classical,  and  the  Romance,  show,  upon  the  whole,  three  fairly 
distinct  types  of  the  synizesis  process.     For  although  all  synizesis 

'  Diphthongalization  is  not  precisely  the  same  process  as  Old  Latin  synizesis 
(Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Ass.  XXXVI,  pp.  170  flf.,  179),  but  the  two  processes  have  many 
points  of  similarity,  and  are  often  identified  (cf.  Schuchardt  Vokalismus  des  Vulgdr- 
lateins  II,  p.  510). 

2  For  example,  the  Romance  possessives  are  derived  as  a  rule  from  dissyllabic 
wieifm,  tuum,  etc.,  but  they  often  develop  independently  a  diphthongal  pronunciation 
very  similar  to  that  of  Old  Latin.  Thus,  in  O.  Span.,  mio,  m&  are  almost  invariably 
monosyllabic  in  the  proclitic  position  (Cornu  Romania  XIII,  pp.  307  ff. ;  cf.  Trans, 
XXXVI,  p.  195,  n.  1),  and  a  similar  treatment  existed  in  Provencal,  as  the  following 
lines  from  Appel's  Provenzal.  Chresfomathie  will  serve  to  illustrate ;  No.  108  (p.  159), 
144  (La  nobla  leyczon) :  diczent :  vene  vos  en,  li  beneit  del  rnio  payre ;  No.  74  (p.  HI), 
29  (Raimon  Gaucelm  )  de  la  mia  mort,  per  so  siatz  a  mal  mes. 

[Classical  Philology  III,  April,  1908]      153 


Robert  8.  Radford 


rests  upon  the  tendency  of  the  short  vowels  i  {e)  and  u  in  hiatus 
to  assume  a  semi-voealic  character,  and  no  thoroughgoing  dis- 
tinctkm  om  comequentty  be  made  between  Greek  and  Roman 

usage  (Zander  Ven.  limlf  ^  cavii),,  y«l  it  is  true  that  the  type 
which  is  usual  ill  Greek  and  Classical  Latin  is  chiefly  employed 
as  a  convenient  and  an  artistic  device  for  the  purpose  of  intro- 
iiiciiig''difficiilt  wwi^Jbnusiiito  the  stately  and  sonorous  movement 
of  the  verse  ( Tram,,  p.  167) .'  The  synizesis  of  Old  Latin  dialogue 
verse,  on  the  other  hand,  is  entirely  free  from  poetic  artifice  and 
Wholly  •ifoiitMieonB  In  ito  character.  Finally,  the  extensive 
gynizesis  of  tie  Late  Latin  period  often  causes  the  semi-vowel  i 
to  merge  itself  i&  a  preceding  consonant,  to  which  it  gives  a 
platal  ciiiiiter,  m  seen,  ia.  ft.,  singe  from,  *9imya,  bras  from 
^hrmtfum,  etc,  (Mndsay  L(tl  Lang.,  pp.  81,  IM,  263). 

It  is  not  sufficient  then  to  speak  of  synizesis  in  general  terms, 
bat  il  18'  neceBBiirj  to  nqmiie  ipecifically ''into  the  extent,  the  cause 
and  tlie  »al'  ciiractttT"  rf  tie  OM  Latin  variety.  Hence  I  have 
sought  to  show  at  some  length  in  im  article  published  in  the 
Trans.  Am,  Phil,  Assoc.  XXXVI  (1905),  pp.  158  ft.,  that  pre- 
cisely lial  sequence  ^:  oyllaUeB'  and  that  position  (rf  the  accent 
which  causes  iambic  shortening  in  the  case  of  vowels  separated  by 
a  consonant,  has  produced  synizesis  in  the  case  of  the  half- vowels 
I  («)  and  tt  in  iiatnii.  Tiia  iw  tiid  tie  difficult  quantitative 
sequence  —  1  alike  in  ddmt  frdtrem  and  in  mmm  frdtrem,  but 
the  method  which  is  employed  in  escaping  from  the  difficulty  is 
diiefent  in  the  two  examples.  In  caies  lili  'flii>  iait^/tie  Romans 
naturally  tended,  as  they  hastened  to  pronounce  the  following 
accented  syllable,  to  shorten  the  second  syllable  of  iambic  words 
and  word-beginnings,  thus  giving  rise  to  the  phenomena  of  Brevis 
Brevians,  e.  g.,  domi  frdtrem,  vdlfiptdtem;  in  cases  like  the 
second,  however,  the  language  offers  a  simpler  and  an  easier 
method  of  removing  the  difficulty  in  question  through  the  slurring 
of  the  initial  syllable  of  the  iambic  word  or  word-beginning,  and 
thus  exhibits  the  varied  phenomena  of  Brevis  Coalescens,  e.  g., 
{e)dritndem,  l{i)en6sus,  m{e)um  frdtrem.     With  the  weakening 

iThis  is  also  the  character  of  the  synizesis  which  is  admitted  in  Old  Latin  anapaestic 
verse,  if  synizesis  be  the  true  explanation  of  such  phenomena,  e.  g.,  aur{e)ds ;  cf. 
Zander  Vers.  Ital.,  pp.  cxxvi  ff. 


Notes  on  Latin  Synizesis 


155 


of  meum  in  the  last  example,  we  may  well  compare,  as  Professor 
Fay  kindly  suggests  to  me,  the  unemphatic  and  colloquial  English 
possessive  which  is  heard  in  *ml  Lord,'  *ml  brother,'  *ml  friend,' 
and  the  like. 

Although  many  points  of  similarity,  as  has  just  been  indicated, 
exist  between  iambic  shortening  and  synizesis,  there  are  also  impor- 
tant points  of  difference,  and  the  numerous  cases  like  dedrum, 
edmus,  qiiieto,  tiidm-rem,  med-quidem  show  us  plainly  that  we 
cannot  possibly  read  all  iambic  words  and  word-beginnings  with 
shortening  (e.  g.,  dSdrum,  edmus,  tudm-rem,  etc.),  and  so  remove 
synizesis  entirely  from  the  dramatic  poets,  as  C.  F.  W.  Mailer, 
Skutsch,  and  Havet  have  proposed  to  do.  In  addition,  the  vulgar 
Latin  forms  of  a  later  period  should  be  closely  compared  with  the 
early  Latin  phenomena.  These  have  been  most  fully  collected  from 
late  inscriptions  and  from  MSS  by  Schuchardt,  Vokalismus  des 
Vulgdrlaieins  II,  pp.  441-519 ;  III,  pp.  295-311,  and  are  referred 
by  him  to  various  subdivisions.'  The  following  citations  are 
especially  noteworthy:    des    {zes),   debus   {zebus),  de  for  dies, 

» Schuchardt's  treatment  of  this  whole  subject  is  a  valuable  and  suggestive  one. 
He  points  out  (II,  p.  44^^)  that  three  phenomena  are  comprehended  as  final  results  under 
the  term  synizesis:  (1)  Consonantization,  'Konsonantirung,'  e.  g.,  genua  Verg.  A.  v. 
432;  (2)  Elision,  e.g.,  sem{i)animes  Verg.  A.  x.  396;  (3)  Contraction,  'Kontraktion,' 
'  Zusammenziehung,'  e.  g.,  reice  Verg.  E.  iii.  96.  To  the  consonantization  of  the  semi- 
vowels  (II,  pp.  442, 502)  he  does  not  assign  an  especially  important  rCle,  but  classifies  his 
material  chiefly  under  the  phenomena  of  '  elision '  (II,  pp.  441  ff. )  and '  contraction '  (II, 
pp.  505  ff.,  510  ff.).  While  admitting  the  extreme  diflBculty  of  distinguishing  sharply 
between  the  two  last-named  processes,  Schuchardt  adopts  the  criterion  that  'elision' 
preserves  the  quality  of  the  second  vowel,  as  in  Thodorus,  debus,  quescit,  while 
'  improper  contraction '  preserves  that  of  the  first  vowel,  as  in  Thedorus,  dibus,  quiscit 
( II,  p.  442).  The  proposed  criterion  is,  in  my  judgment,  far  from  being  always  a  con- 
clusive or  a  satisfactory  one,  and  leads  to  a  frequent  separation  of  examples  which 
properly  belong  together.  Thus  the  forms  debus  and  dibu^,  quescit  and  quiscit,  which 
Schuchardt  is  compelled  to  treat  separately  (II,  pp.  445  ff.  and  III,  pp.  295  ff. ;  II,  pp. 
513  ff.  and  III,  pp.  310  ff.)  may  very  possibly  all  alike  be  the  result  of  contraction, 
and  the  variant  spelling  in  these  cases  probably  points  only  to  a  pronunciation  of  the 
vowel  which  is  intermediate  between  c  and  i.  It  seems  safe  then  to  adopt  Schuchardt's 
first  form  of  statement  (II,  p.  442)  and  to  conclude  simply  that  in  all  the  cases  in 
question  the  two  vowels  form  a  syllabic  unity  and  thus  produce  'diphthongalization,' 
the  latter  term  being  here  used  in  a  suflaciently  broad  sense  to  include  combinations 
like  ai  as  well  as  those  like  di.  Schuchardt  is  clearly  correct,  however,  when  he 
maintains  further  that  the  word-accent  affords  no  certain  criterion  between  the  two 
processes :  "  through  inversion  of  the  accent  a  contraction-diphthong  may  arise  out  of 
an  elision-diphthong,  and  vice  versa.  Beside  nofitus  =  nedfitus  =  nedfitus  stands  nefitus 
=  niofitus ;  so  sos  -  su6s  =  s4os  =  silos  (11,  p.  443 ;  III,  p.  333) ;  des  =  dih  =  dies  =  dies 
(II,  p.  445) ;  capredla  =  capredla  =  capriola  =  capr^la  (I,  p.  427)." 


156 


Robert  S.  Radford 


Notes  on  Latin  Synizesis 


157 


diehus,  die  (II,  p.  445;  III,  p.  295;  I,  p.  67  ff.;  cf.  Seelmann, 
Ausspr,  d,  Lai,,  pp.  239,  323);  dis,  di{s),  dibiis  for  dies,  etc. 
(II,  p.  513  f.;  Ill,  p.  310);  dae,  do  for  deae,  deo  (II,  p.  463; 
III,  p.  298);  dende  for  deinde  (II,  p.  513);  andem  for  eandem 
(II,  p.  463);  sa,  so,  su  (abl.)  for  sua,  etc.  (II,  pp.  464  fF.);  dos 
for  duos  (II,  p.  467);*  dodeci  for  duodecim  (II,  p.  467);* 
quescit,  Quetus,  quiscit,  Quitns  for  quiescit,  Quietus  (II,  pp.  448  ff., 
514  f. ;  III,  p.  296) ;  jmlla,  pullae  for  pwe/Za,  puellae  (II,  p.  518; 
fustis,^  fut  tor  fuistis,  fuit  (II,  p.  519).* 

Schuchardt  makes  no  mistake,  I  think,  in  repeatedly  comparing 
these  late  and  vulgar  spellings  with  the  Old  Latin  phenomena 
(  Vokalismus  II,  pp.  444,  464,  511,  etc.).*  The  early  and  the  late 
Latin  forms  alike  give  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  the  semi- 
vowel in  hiatus,  and  it  does  not  seem  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  Old  Latin  dissyllabic  pronunciations  of  quiescit,  puella, 
fuistis,  eandem,  deinde  ( Trans,,  p.  182)  were  always  largely  pre- 

*Cf.  the  Uinbr.  contracted  form  dur  'duo,'  from  *duur,  *duds^  Buck  Grammar  of 
Oscan  and  Umbrian^  §§54,  82;  cf.  also  Span,  rfos,  Pg.  dois,  Fr.  deux,  Wal.  doi, 

*0f.  Ital.  dodtct,  Span,  rfoce,  Pg.  Pr.  doze. 

'Cf.  Ital. /oste,  Vg.fostes,  Vt.fotz,  Fr.fUtes. 

*0n  the  early  popular  form  fut  (cf.  Ital.  /u,  Pg.  foi,  Pr.  /o,  Fr.  fUt),  see  also 
W.  Meyer,  K.  Z.  XXX,  p.  341.  The  precise  manner  in  which  the  synizesis  forms /wsfia 
and  puXla  have  arisen  is  not  quite  clear.  The  vulgar  puila  might  perhaps  be  explained 
as  derived  from  the  original  form  *pAerula  (Vanicek  Etymol.  WOrterbuch^  p.  550) 
through  the  intermediate  stages  *piJ(e)ru/a,  piir  ''la,  but  Schuchardt's  explanation 
(II,  p.  511)  of  a  contraction-diphthong  due  to  inversion  of  the  accent,  i.  e.,  a  shift  of  the 
accent  from  the  first  to  the  second  element  of  the  diphthongal  sound,  is  also  an  attrac- 
tive one  (see  also  above,  p.  155,  n.  1) :  '*  Der  Wortakzent  ist  hierbei  zunftchst  indifferent. 
Aus  pu^lla^  fuisse  wurden  allerdings  zunftchst  puHla^  fulsse,  dann  aber  (wie  sp. 
vMnte  =  veinte^  fr.  empereur  =  emper^or  =  emperedr)  piXella^fHisse,  wie  aus  den  Schrei- 
bungen  pnlla.fusse  hervorgeht.  Daher  scheint  die  Oorssen'sche Annahme  der  Betonung 
puilla^  fuisse  (II,  212  fg.)  fflr  die  Messungen  piee//a,  fuisse  bei  Plautuseine  unsichere 
zu  sein."  Other  probable  examples  of  such  diphthongs  and  long  vowels  as  the  result 
of  contraction  in  Latin  are  coepi  from  co-epi  (Stolz  Hist.  Oramm.  I,  p.  155)  and  (^)ctas 
(Varro  R.R.  iii.  16;  28;  cf.  Caper  Gramm.  Lai.  VII  94. 16)  from  codcttis  (Stolz  loc. 
dt.^  p.  219).  Analogy  may  have  exerted  an  influence  upon  some  of  these  forms,  but 
Victor  Henry's  assumption  {Conip.  Gramm.*,  Eng.  transl.,  §73,  p.  84)  that  the  con- 
traction which  is  seen  in  coepi  has  first  arisen  in  forms  like  cdepisti  seems,  upon  the 
whole,  unnecessary. 

^The  monosyllabic  pronunciation  of  cuius^  huius  does  not  belong  to  Old  Latin 
synizesis  in  the  sense  in  which  the  term  is  here  employed,  but  is  '  probably  due  to  the 
loss  of  j  between  two  like  vowels'  (Birt  Rhein.  Mus.  LI,  p.  247,  n.) ;  compare  also  the 
shortened  pronunciation  of  illius^  istius.  Schuchardt  ( Vok.  II,  p.  508)  quotes  here  the 
plebeian  forms  cus  and  hv^,  also  cuis  and  huis;  see  also  Corssen  11^,  p.  182,  and  Luchs 
Studem,  Stud.  I,  pp.  319  ff. 


J 


served  in  vulgar  speech  and  were  essentially  identical  with  the 
late  and  vulgar  quescit,  quiscit,  pidla,  fustis,  andem,  dende  just 
mentioned.^  This  latter  supposition,  though  an  extremely  prob- 
able one,  is,  however,  incapable  of  absolute  proof,  since  a  new 
and  independent  development  might  also  have  produced  these 
forms  in  the  later  language.  In  any  case  the  late  synizesis  is 
considerably  more  extended  in  its  use  than  that  of  the  early  period. 
For  if  we  except  the  few  and  somewhat  uncertain  examples  like 
evenat,  augura,  or{i)undi  {Trans.,  p.  169) ,  we  find  the  Old  Latin 
synizesis  strictly  limited  to  the  quantitative  sequence  ^  _,  in  cases 
where  this  is  initial;^  the  later  type,  however,  is  wholly  unre- 
stricted and  depends  solely  upon  the  weakness  of  the  semivowels 
in  hiatus.  Thus  the  Old  Latin  type  shows  in  dialogue  meters 
only  die,  eat,  quiescit  {Trans.,  p.  174),  but  the  late  language 
employs  also  very  freely  pride  (Schuchardt  II,  p.  445),  exatis, 
exuntes  (II,  pp.  463  f.),  requevit  (II,  p.  450),  facendum,  adridat,_ 
Thodoro,  etc. 

To  return  to  the  early  Latin  occurrence  of  these  phenomena, 
the  dramatists  admit  synizesis  most  frequently  in  proclitic  and 
'enclitic'  words  like  the  possessive  or  demonstrative  pronouns  and 
the  substantive  verb,  which  have  little  appreciable  accent  of  their 
own  (e.  g.  ni{e)iim  frdtrem,  {e)dm-rem,  f{u)i  liber),  but  they 
also  employ  it  freely  in  the  case  of  many  substantives  and  verbs 
like  die,  deo,  scio,  which  have  the  ordinary  intensity  of  tone.  It 
is  in  the  treatment  of  this  last-named  class  of  words  that  I  fear 
my  former  discussion  was  not  suflficiently  clear,  but  requires  some 
amplification  and  enlargement.*  Thus,  in  explaining  the  occur- 
rence of  synizesis  formerly,  I  properly  attached  much  importance 

»Cf.  Schuchardt  Vok.  I,  p.  59:  "Oft  ist  die  Aehnlichkeit  zwischen  der  vulgftren 
Sprache  des  4.,  5.,  6.  Jahrh.  n.  Chr.  und  dem  alterthflmlichen  Latein  betont  worden. 
Unndthigerweise ;  dies  alterthtimliche  Latein  ist  welter  Nichts,  als  vulgftres." 

2  The  species  of  syncope  by  which  vowel  u  was  converted  into  consonant  u  after 
h  ifi  9»  9  and  s,  e.  g.  in  larva^  milvos,  reliquos,  etc. — earlier  larua,  miluos,  relicuos — is 
still  unknown  to  Plautus  and  belongs  to  a  somewhat  later  stage  of  the  language  (Lind- 
say Lat.  Lang.,  p.  46;  Capt.,  p.  20).  After  other  consonants  vowel  u  is  simply  lost 
through  this  process,  e.  g.  in  quatt(u)or,  quatt{u)ordecim,  but  these  latter  forms  are 
scarcely  attested  for  Plautus  (Trans.,  p.  174,  n.  3),  and  are  first  clearly  shown  for 
Ennius,  cf .  Georges  Lex.  Wortformen  s.  v. ;  Grdber  ALL.  V,  pp.  127  f . ;  Schuchardt  II, 
p.  519;  III,  p.  311.  • 

8 Of.,  however,  Trans.  XXXVI,  p.  193,  n.  1 ;  p.  195,  n.  2;  p.  210. 


158 


KOBERT    S.    RaDFOBD 


Notes  on  Latin  Synizesis 


159 


in  several  cases  to  the  weakened  uses  of  some  of  these  forms,  e.  g., 
to  the  trite  or  emotional  use  of  deo  and  the  parenthetical  use  of 
scio  {he.  cit,  p.  181,  n.  1;  pp.  195  f.).     No  explanation  can  be 
really  complete,  however,  which  does  not  recognize  the  fact  that 
the  slurred  forms  of  deo,  die  and  scio  occur  not  only  in  weak,  but 
also  in  fairly    emphatic   uses   of   these   words,  which    does   not 
meet  the  very  plausible  arguments  which  the  opponents  of  Old 
Latin  synizesis  advance  at  this  point.     For  the  latter  claim  that 
all  iambic  words  like  d^o,  die,  scid,  etc.,  which  have  a  distinct 
accent,  have  their  final  syllable  shortened  by  the  accent,  and  there- 
fore cannot  well  have  the  first  or  accented  syllable  slurred   in 
subordination  to  the  second.     Although  this  argument  has  been 
confidently  employed  against  genuine  synizesis  from  the  time  of 
Corssen  (cf.  II,  pp.  761  f.)  to  the  present,  I  believe  that  it  will 
appear  upon  closer  examination  to  be  wholly  fallacious.     Thus — 
to  consider  first  the  cases  of  iambic  shortening — although  the 
accent  of  the  single  iambic  word  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  factors 
in  this  process,  yet  it  is  now  generally  recognized  that  it  is  far 
from  being  the  only  factor,  or  even  the  chief  one.     For  in  actual 
speech  we  are  not  concerned  so  much  with  individual  words  as 
with  the  phrase  or  the  sentence.    Hence  it  is  not  the  iambic  word 
as  such  that  we  usually  find  shortened,  but  the  iambic  word  in 
certain  sentence-phrases,  e.  g.,  vold-scire,  hene-fdctum,  iihi-dico, 
dedi-d&no,  have-frdter  (in  verse  also  d^di-dond,  hdve-fraUr,  vdlo- 
s<nr{e)l).     For   it  is   clear  that  as  the  voice  hastens  here  to 
pronounce  the  following  accented  syllable,  it  utters  both  syllables 
of  the  iambic  word  so  hurriedly  that  the  whole  seems  to  the  ear 
to  have  the  value  of  two  shorts;  see  especially  Lindsay's  admir- 
able  discussion  of  the  Iambic  Law,  Lat.  Lang,,   pp.  210  ff.; 
Capt,  pp.  30  ff.*     Hence,  as  Lindsay  correctly  observes,  the  words 
which  were  most  completely  shortened  in  the  Old  Latin  period 
and  to  which  the  shortening  process  was  first  applied,  are  auxiliary 
adverbs  like  bene  and  male,  auxiliary  pronouns  like  ego,  mihi, 
tihi,  and  subordinate  adverbs  like  modo,  ciio,  ibi,  ubi,  nisi.    Simi- 
larly Skutsch  {Sat.  Viadr.,  pp.  128  f.;  Tepa?,  p.  128)  states  the 
principle  that  "the  first  syllable  of  shortened  iambic  words  was 

>0f.  also  Am.  Jour.  Phil.  XXVII,  p.  434. 


i 


ilf 


often  unaccented,"  and  cites  as  examples  the  frequent  shortening 
of  such  proclitics  and  *  enclitics'  as  apiid  {m6nsam),^  enim  {vSro), 
tamen  {n^queo),  quidem  {praetor),  aptly  comparing  with  these 
the  shortening  seen  in  voMptdtem,  senectiltem,  and  the  like.  To 
these  cases  of  weakening  I  should  like  to  add  the  almost  complete 
loss  of  final  s  which  Leo  {Fo7*sch.,  pp.  267  ff.)  has  pointed  out  in 
the  subordinate  adverbs  nimis,  satis,  magis,  and  which  Hauler 
{Einl.  z.  Phor.,  p.  50)  notes  also  in  prius.  Such  examples  show 
clearly  that  the  principal  factor  in  iambic  shortening  is  not  the 
accent  of  the  individual  iambic  word,  but  the  accent  of  the  phrase 
or  of  the  sentence  in  which  the  iambic  word  is  placed.  Hence, 
even  in  the  case  of  those  terminations  which  were  finally  short- 
ened entirely,  e.  g.,  o,  or,  at,  it  and  the  like,  we  clearly  have  a  right 
to  assume  that  the  shortening  of  such  words  as  homo,  void,  dabo, 
vetor,  vetdt,  dedit,  etc.,  began  chiefly  in  sentence-phrases  (cf. 
Lindsay  Caj^t.,  p.  33;  Lat.  Lang.,  pp.  210  ff.),  although  it  must 
be  freely  granted  that  the  shortening  process  was  here  assisted  by 
the  accent  of  the  individual  word. 

Important  as  the  individual  accent  is,  it  is  often  profoundly 
modified  in  the  sentence,  and  if  we  wish  to  obtain  practical  results 
in  accentual  study,  our  doctrine  must  not  be  one  of  individualism 
so  much  as  one  of  collectivism  and  association.  In  questions  of 
accent,  we  cannot,  to  be  sure,  neglect  the  study  of  the  single 
word,  but  we  must  fix  our  attention  still  more  upon  the  sentence, 
since  it  is  the  organism  of  which  single  words  are  but  the  parts 
and  the  instruments.  Thus  the  substantive  and  the  verb  are  uni- 
versally admitted  to  be  the  most  strongly  accented  parts  of  speech, 
but  even  their  accent  is  often  greatly  weakened  in  the  sentence  in 
consequence  of  their  association  with  other  words,  so  that,  in 
calling  them  strongly  accented,  we  scarcely  mean  more  than  that 
they  are  pronounced  with  stress  in  the  majority  of  their  uses.  We 
may  profitably  compare  the  accent  of  a  simple  English  sentence 
such  as  *I  cdll  the  g6ds  to  aid';   if  three  distinct  accents  are 

»Leo  {Forsch.,  pp.  226  f.)  appears  to  go  too  far  in  maintaining  that  the  usual 
pyrrhic  scansion  of  apiid  in  Old  Latin  verse  is  due  to  a  definite  loss  of  the  final  d.  The 
whole  particle  was  greatly  weakened  in  pronunciation,  and  as  a  consequence  the  final 
consonant  was  no  doubt  sometimes  obscured;  cf.  Corp.  Gloss.  Lat.  II,  21,  40:  ''ape^ 
irapd. 


» 


160 


KoBEBT  S.  Radford 


1] 


observed  in  such  a  sentence,  we  recognize  that  it  is  spoken  with 
sharp  distinctness,  but  in  hurried  colloquial  speech  it  is  much 
more  likely  that  only  two  accents  will  be  clearly  heard,  e.  g.,  'I 
c&U  (the  gods)  to  aid,'  or  '(I  call)  the  g6d8  to  aid!',  while  the 
words  which  are  inclosed  in  parentheses  will  be  slurred  or  treated 
as  subordinate.  Similarly,  whenever,  in  a  Latin  sentence  like 
deos  quci^so  tit  sit  sup^rstes  {And.  487),  the  chief  accent  of  the 
sentence  was  thrown  upon  qna^so,  the  individual  word  deos  was 
made  subordinate  to  a  certain  extent,  and  consequently  the  accent 
of  the  first  syllable  was  not  left  strong  enough  to  resist  slurring 
under  the  existing  phonetic  conditions.*  In  the  case  of  such  a 
sentence,  no  doubt  there  existed  originally  two  forms  of  pronunci- 
ation differentiated  by  the  place  of  the  chief  accent,  viz.  d[e)osqiia4so 
and  dSos  quaeso,  and  we  may  say  in  general  that  during  one  period 
of  Old  Latin  both  d{e)os  and  deos  must  have  existed,  and  that  one 
or  the  other  of  the  two  forms  must  have  been  used  according  to 
the  accent  scheme  of  the  particular  sentence.  Owing  to  the 
fugitive  nature  of  Latin  i  [e)  in  hiatus,  however,  the  former  pro- 
nunciation proved  so  much  easier  and  more  euphonious  that,  in 
the  time  of  Plautus,  it  was  almost  exclusively  in  use.* 

1  So  also,  if  Plautus  has  a  few  cases  (chiefly  in  the  first  foot)  of  neglect  of  common 
word-accent,  as  in  Amph.  761  de^disse  dono  hddie  (cf.  Ahlberg  Cotv^ept.  iamb.^  pp. 
90  ff.),  such  a  passage  was  probably  not  pronounced  dedisse  d6no  hddie^  but  rather 
dedisse  dono  hodie^  the  voice  hastening  over  the  whole  word  dedisse  and  coming  to 
rest,  as  it  were,  upon  dono.  For  a  somewhat  simihir  view,  which,  however,  needlessly 
suggests  a  word-group  dedisse-ddno^  cf.  Lindsay  Capf.^  p.  36. 

^In  the  case  of  forms  like  deo,  die,  it  may  perhaps  be  remembered  in  addition  that, 
in  vulgar  Latin,  di  (de)  tended  to  pass  into  the  sound  of  y,  and  at  a  later  period  into 
that  of  z  or  of  simple  d.  This  latter  pronunciation  gives  rise  to  the  vulgar  spellings 
do^  daen  des^  zes<,  etc. ;  cf.  above,  pp.  155f. ;  Trans.  XXXVI.  200;  Lindsay  ixH'.  Lang.^  pp. 
49,  84 ;  Seelmann  Ausspr.  d.  Lat.,  p.  323.  Thus  Lindsay  remarks  that '  the  assibilation 
showed  itself  even  in  the  case  of  accented  di,  ti.^  The  trite  use  of  deus  in  oaths  and 
prayers,  however,  is  probably  the  principal  factor  in  producing  in  Old  Latin  the  much- 
discussed  contract  forms  di,  dis  from  original  *dee  (*die),  *dees  {*dies),  but  the  fuller 
discussion  of  these  contractions  must  be  reserved  for  a  separate  paper  (see  Am.  Jour. 
Phil.  XXIX).— So  far  as  regards  the  full  spelling  of  the  singular  forms,  examples 
of  dio  and  dia  are  cited  from  the  Inscrr.  by  Seelmann  Ausspr.,  p.  187  (cf.  Trans. 
XXXVI,  p.  194,  n.  3),  and  dium  {  =  deorum,)  is  read  by  Jordan  in  Cato  47.  16.  It 
is  not  quite  clear  whether  we  have  here  weakened  forms  of  deo,  deum  and  dea,  or 
case-forms  derived  from  di(v)us.  but  the  former  explanation  is  more  probable.  One 
has  sometimes  been  tempted  to  assume  also  (cf.  Lindsay  Lat.  Lang.,  p.  618)  that  we 
find  dlu3  as  the  atonic  form  of  deus  in  the  locution  me  Dius  Fidius,  but,  in  addition  to 
other  difficulties,  very  grave  doubt  exists  as  to  the  quantity  of  the  i  in  Dius  Fidiv^j 


Notes  on  Latin  Synizesis 


161 


One  other  point  requires  notice.  We  have  seen  that  the  slurred 
form  d{e)os  arises  originally  in  such  a  sentence  as  deos  quaeso; 
no  sooner,  however,  is  this  form  fully  established  here  than  it 
becomes  possible  to  accent  freely  in  verse  d[e)6s  quaeso  lit  vobis 
dec4t  {Ad.  491,  275),  as  well  as  to  retain  the  original  accent- 
scheme  deos  quaeso;  cf.  also  d{i)e  quinti  and  d{i)6  quinti.  To 
sum  up:  The  objections  which  Skutsch,  Ahlberg,  and  Gleditsch 
make  against  synizesis  on  the  score  of  the  accent  of  the  single 
word  d6d  have  weight  only  if  deo  be  the  sole  word  or  the  last 
word  of  the  sentence,*  in  short,  only  if  deo  be  completely  isolated 
and  cut  off  from  the  society  of  its  fellows,  and  thus  entirely 
removed  from  the  normal  play  of  the  sentence-accent.  Old  Latin 
synizesis  is  produced  as  the  voice  is  in  rapid  motion  and  is 
hastening  to  pronounce  a  following  accented  syllable;  hence  it  is 
excluded  from  the  end  of  the  grammatical  or  metrical  sentence, 
since,  in  this  last  position,  we  cannot  say  sit  deo,  but,  in  order  to 
produce  synizesis,  we  must  have  the  series  continued,  as  in  sit 
deo  grdtia. 

especially  if  the  reading  of  Asin.  23  is  correct  {per  Dtum  Fidium,  where  Dium  is  an 
almost  necessary  correction  for  MS  deum).  Stolz  {Indogerm.  Forsch.  XVIII,  pp.  453 f.) 
suggests  that  the  scansion  Dius  in  this  passage  is  due  to  confusion  with  dius,  divu^,  and 
argues  also  for  the  existence  of  the  form  Dlu^,  which  he  derives  from  Ind.-Eur.  dieus. 

^On  the  similarity  of  sentence-close  and  verse-close,  cf.  Birt  Rhein.  Mus.  LI, 
p.  266;  L.  Miiller  Res  Metr."^,  pp.  266  flf. 

2  The  exclusion  of  sjniizesis  from  the  close  of  lines  which  end  with  an  iambus 
( w  - )  was  explained  in  my  former  article  ( Trans.  XXXVI,  pp.  165, 179,  195,  n.  1,  208) 
as  due  solely  to  the  principle  of  metrical  regularity,  but  since,  in  the  close  of  a  metri- 
cal sentence  like  frdtre  nied,  synizesis  would  he  entirely  dependent  upon  the  m,etrical 
accent  and  could  not  occur  in  actual  speech,  it  seems  very  possible  that  it  is  excluded 
from  iambic  verse-closes  by  the  accentual  conditions  as  well  as  by  metrical  convention. 
The  metrical  accent  alone  is  probably  capable  of  producing  some  changes  in  word- 
forms,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  its  power  is  unrestricted  like  that  of  the 
word-accent;  the  statement  of  Trans.  XXXVI,  p.  176,  probably  goes  beyond  our 
knowledge  here,  and  requires  some  modification.  On  the  other  hand,  the  non-occur- 
rence of  tetramoric  aureds  in  full  anap.  verse-closes,  which  is  pointed  out  by  Skutsch 
(T4pas,  p.  131),  does  not  seem  to  me  to  require  any  special  explanation.  In  my  judg- 
ment, no  certainty  has  yet  been  reached  for  anap.  verse  respecting  either  the  limits  of 
shortening  or  the  occurrence  of  synizesis  except  in  the  case  of  iambic  words.  I  myself 
am  inclined  to  accept,  for  every  foot  except  the  last,  the  anap.  scansions  perdidt, 
aiireas,  since  these  latter  seem  to  me  to  rest  on  plausible  grounds  of  historical  develop- 
ment, which  I  have  briefly  stated  elsewhere  {Am.  Jour.  Phil.  XXVII,  pp.  430  flf.).  As 
regards  the  non-occurrence  of  aUreas  in  anap.  closes,  and  its  occurrence  in  the  dac- 
tylic closes  of  the  Augustans  {Trans.  XXXVI,  p.  168),  though  not  in  those  of  Ennius, 
it  should  be  remembered  that  the  Augustan  hexameter  has  its  own  ictus,  its  own 


T 


162 


« 


KoBERT  S.  Radford 


II.      SOME   SPECIAL   CASES   OP   SYNIZESIS 


Notes  on  Latin  Synizesis 


163 


It  remains  to  note  briefly  a  few  special  problems  and  special 
developments  of  Latin  synizesis.  The  first  of  these  problems 
relates  to  the  rocative  of  the  possessive  meus.  It  is  important  to 
remember  here  that  this  case  of  the  possessive  almost  invariably 
occupies  in  prose  the  proclitic  position  immediately  before  the 
substantive,  e.  g.,  mi  fill,  mi  pater ^  mi  fratres  ( Trans.  XXXVI, 
p.  197,  n.  1),  and  it  is  clear  that  this  position  has  influenced  to 
some  extent  the  case-form  of  the  vocative  plural.  Thus,  in  the  case 
of  the  nominative  plural,  mei  frdtres  is  only  one  of  several  possible 
word-orders;  consequently  nominative  plural  yw(e)i  shows  perhaps 
only  approximate  syncope  and  is  only  quasi-monosyllabic.  In  the 
vocative  plural,  however,  7nei  fratres  is  an  almost  invariable  order, 
and  here  we  find  that  m{e)i  has  been  reduced  to  an  absolute 
monosyllable  in  Old  Latin,  and  may  be  fully  elided  before  a  fol- 
lowing short  syllable,  e.  g.,  Ci.  678  m{i)  hdmin^s,  mi  sp^datdrea 
(anap.  sept. ) ;  Mi,  1330  6  mt  dculi.  In  the  latter  passage,  our 
editions  (e.  g.,  edd.  min.  and  mai.)  usually  accept  o  mei  from 
very  inferior  MSS,  but  the  form  mi  is  clearly  implied  in  the  read- 
ing oh  mihi  of  BCD,  and  should  unquestionably  be  placed  in 
the  text;*  for  the  legitimate  hiatus,  cf.  Mi.  1330  6  mi  dnime; 
As.  661  ml  6nime;  Cas.  131  ml  01ympi6  (Skutsch  Philol.  LIX, 
p.  487;  Maurenbrecher  Hint,  p.  162).  Similarly,  although  many 
scholars  question  the  contraction  of  Latin  ie  into  i,  the  ancient 
derivation  of  voc.  sing,  mi  from  *mie,  voc.  of  atonic  7nius,  remains 
distinctly  the  most  probable  explanation  of  the  form  (cf.  Lindsay 
Lat.  Lang.y  p.   422),  and  the   contraction   may   possibly    have 

artistic  devices,  and  its  own  special  conventions  to  facilitate  the  fitting  of  difBcult 
words  into  the  frameworlc  of  the  verse  {sy^iizesis  Oraecanica).  Finally,  the  total 
suppression  of  vowel  t  and  u  suggested  in  Tratis.  XXXVI,  pp.  169,  204,  cannot  be  con- 
sidered certain ;  it  is  perhaps  admissible  to  reject  as  corrupt  the  half-dozen  passages 
cited  in  the  latter  passage,  and  to  retain  with  Skutsch  {Tipas,  p.  Ill)  only  St.  39  pol, 
m«o  ammo  omnis,  since  feet  like  mdlevolente,  seoulmini  seem  to  be  also  legitimate  in 
Old  Latin  anapaests.  MttUer,  who  scans  dttinent  in  anapaests,  is  inconsistent  in 
accenting  malevdlente  (PI.  Pr.^  p.  416). 

»The  PI.  and  Ter.  MSS,  as  Is  well  known,  constantly  read  mihi  for  mr,  nihil  for 
nil;  cf .,  for  example,  Ahlberg  Procel.  I,  pp.  106 ff.  Similarly,  mihi  is  not  infrequently 
written  for  voc.  mt,  as  As.  689  mihi  patrone,  Mm.  1125  mihi  germane,  Mer.  947  mihi 
Bodalis  {loc.  cit.,  p.  107). 


been  facilitated  by  the  almost  invariable  proclitic  position  which 
it  occupies.* 

I  may  mention  also  the  fact  that  Latin  has  assimilated  the 
present  'subjunctive'  (optative)  forms  of  esse,  viz.  stem,  sies,  siet, 
sient  to  the  two  plural  forms  simus,  sltis.  Thus  the  much  more  fre- 
quent and  more  numerous  forms  have  followed  the  analogy  of  the 
less  frequent  and  less  numerous  ones,  and,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  fuller  forms  remained  in  use  to  so  late  a  period,  some  further 
explanation  of  the  final  outcome  here  seems  desirable  (cf.  Stolz 
Indogerm.  Forsch.  XVIII,  p.  470).  Zander's  explanation  {Vers. 
Ital.y  p.  cxx)  that  the  l  of  sit  is  not  due  to  analogy,  but  is  a  Latin  con- 
traction of  -ie-,,  is  scarcely  admissible,  since  the  Old  Latin  form  can- 
not well  have  been  siet,  as  he  assumes,  with  iambic  shortening,  but 
was  much  more  probably  siet;^  even  the  hypothesis  which  is 
mentioned  by  Sommer  [Lat,  Lautl.,  p.  577,  n.  1)  and  by  Stolz 
{loc.  cit.),  viz.  that  contraction  of  -ie-  to  -I-  may  first  have  taken 
place  in  *  enclitic'  combinations  like  potisiet  (shortened  from 
potisiet)  is  not  free  from  difficulties.  On  the  other  hand,  it  does 
not  seem  possible,  even  in  the  initial  iambic  sequence,  that  -ie- 
should  contract  directly  into  -i-,  instead  of  into  -e-;  for  the 
occasional  occurrence  on  late  inscriptions  of  spellings  like  dibits 
{OIL,  VI  25540),  Quita,  inquitare,  etc.^  (as  well  as  of  QuetuSy 
quescere,  requescere),  scarcely  points  to  the  production  of  a 
genuine  i-sound  in  these  cases.     Hence  I  should  suggest  the  fol- 

1  Sommer  Lat.  Lautlehre,  p.  446,  also  wishes  to  make  use  of  the  proclitic  position 
of  the  vocative  to  explain  the  form,  but  the  syncope  of  *m€^'e  to  *mct  is  improbable  in 
the  extreme,  and  is  not  greatly  helped  out  by  comparison  with  hypothetical  ill(e), 
ind(e)^  etc. ;  cf.  Am.  Jour.  Phil.  XXVII,  pp.  418  flF.  Of  course  the  contraction  seen  in 
mi^fili^  Valeri  and  the  like  is  due  primarily  to  the  trite  and  emotional  use  of  these 
everyday  forms ;  compare  what  was  said  above  upon  the  contractions  di,  dis  (p.  160,  n.  2) . 

*With  respect  to  the  orthography,  however,  the  MSS  of  Cato  give  only  the  full 
form  sies  in  the  second  person,  much  more  usually  siet  in  the  third  person  singular 
and  equally  often  sient  in  the  third  person  plural,  and  they  offer  these  full  forms  both 
in  the  middle  and  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  (Weise  Quaest.  Caton.^  Gottingen,  1886, 
pp.  46  f. ;  Neue  Formenlehre  IIF,  pp.  598  f.).  The  earlier  inscriptions  also  show  only 
siet  and  sient  in  both  the  positions  named.  Hence  Zander  (loc.  cit.^  p.  cxx)  argues  with 
much  probability  that  in  the  middle  of  the  verse  or  hemistich,  where  the  Plautus  MSS 
now  show  only  the  short  forms  sim,  sis,  sit,  sint,  this  strict  orthographical  uniformity 
is  due  to  the  corrections  of  the  later  grammarians,  and  Plautus  himself  probably 
wrote  indifferently  sim  or  siem,  sis  or  sies,  etc.  Our  Plautus  MSS  (P)  retain  dimoric 
siet  within  the  verse  only  in  Au.  370  rapftcidarum  ubi  tftntum  si^t  in  a^dibus. 

sSchuchardt  Vok.  II,  pp.  444  ff. 


n 


164 


RoBEBT  S.  Radford 


Notes  on  Latin  Synizesis 


165 


lowing  explanation  as  possibly  accounting  for  the  influence  of  the 
plural  forms:  Weakly  accented  forms  of  the  substantive  verb  like 
siem,  siet  are  necessarily  synizesis  forms  of  an  extreme  type  in 
Old  Latin,  and  therefore  very  unstable  in  pronunciation.  In  other 
words,  they  were  regularly  pronounced  within  the  sentence  very 
nearly  as  *sem,  *set,  e.g.  s{i)em  liber;  only  at  the  close  of  the 
sentence  was  the  dissyllabic  pronunciation  siem  fully  retained,  as 
we  may  see  from  the  usage  of  the  dramatists  (Brock  Quaest. 
gramm.,  pp.  84  f.;  Hauler  Einl  zu  Phor,,  p.  63,  n.  2).  If,  then, 
before  the  beginning  of  the  literary  period,  these  forms  sometimes 
became  genuinely  monosyllabic  and  were  pronounced  at  times 
simply  as  *sem,  *set,  the  introduction,  through  analogy,  of  -I- 
from  the  two  plural  forms  could  have  easily  occurred.'  On  the 
other  hand,  if  the  weakly  accented  forms  *si&mii8,  ^siStis  were 
ever  introduced  in  consequence  of  the  analogy  of  the  singular, 
they  were  quickly  reduced  to  *8emus,  *setis  (cf.  the  reduction 
seen  in  {e)6sdem)y  and  then  assimilated  to  the  short  forms. 

I  have  stated  in  the  first  section  of  this  paper  that  the  effects 
of  the  expiratory  accent  are  perceived  most  clearly  in  the  case  of 
weakly  accented  words,  and  I  wish  to  illustrate  this  principle  still 
further  from  the  later  Augustan  usage.  The  poets  of  the  classical 
age  accomplished  veritable  marvels  in  checking  the  use  of  popular 
synizesis  and  in  cultivating  and  developing  a  more  precise  quanti- 
tative pronunciation.  Thus  they  restored  deos,  sew,  dud  and  even 
duellum,  though  this  last  form  had  definitely  become  dvellum  or 
*dellum  in  Old  Latin  (Birt  Rhein.  Mus.  LI,  p.  73) ;  they  rescued 
also  very  largely  meos  and  eos,  although  they  were  compelled  by 
the  force  of  the  expiratory  accent  freely  to  admit  slurring  (pre- 
tonic  syncope)  in  (e)6sdem  and  {e)(lsdem.  It  is  noteworthy  also 
that  they  were  unable  to  banish  the  slurred  pronunciation  in  the 
case  of  subordinate  particles  which  were  uttered  rapidly  and  with 
little  emphasis  like  proinde,  dein,  deinceps,  deinde/  cf.  quoad 

»0f.  int  (Corp,  Gloss.  II  75.  23)  for  ewn^,  formed  under  similar  conditions  on  the 
analogy  of  tmtis,  itis  (Stolz  Mailer's  Handb.  11»,  2,  p.  161).  On  the  other  hand,  since 
audiunt  is  quite  stable  in  pronunciation,  we  find  no  form  *audint  to  show  the  influence 
of  audimus  and  auditis, 

«Cf.  dende  CIL.  VI  30112;  cf.  also  <ruat  CLE.  470.  1;  qua  ad,  CLE.  208,  and 
Georges  Lex.  Wart/.;  gt«od,  L.  Mttller  Res  Metr.^,  p.  324,  and  Brix-Niemeyer  on 
Cap.  670. 


(L.  Mtlller  Res  Meir.\  pp.  313  ff.).  Vergil,  it  is  true,  had 
restored  in  part  dehinc,^  and  we  find  proln  restored  in  Priap. 
Ixxxiv.  16;  on  the  other  hand,  many  of  the  best  poets  were  in 
doubt  about  the  correct  treatment  of  such  particles,  and  it  is  for 
this  reason  that  Horace,  Lucan,  and  Martial  avoided  dein,  proin, 
proinde  altogether  (L.  MftUer  Res  Metr.\  p.  317;  Birt  loc.  cit, 
p.  268).  In  general,  however,  the  full  forms  j)rdhi,  proinde,  dein, 
delude  were  attempted  only  by  the  very  late  poets  who  ventured 
also  on  ciit  and  liulc;  the  synizesis  forms  proinde,  dein,  deinde 
were  here  retained  by  the  classical  poets,  and  it  is  evident  that  this 
retention  was  closely  connected  with  the  subordination  of  the 
vocables  in  the  sentence  and  their  consequent  weakening  in  pro- 
nunciation. Thus  these  particles  belong,  with  ego,  mihi,  bene, 
male,  and  the  like,  among  the  more  familiar  words  of  common  life, 
which  the  literary  language,  in  spite  of  its  earnest  efforts  to 
develop  the  quantitative  pronunciation,  was  unable  effectively  to 
withdraw  from  the  influence  of  the  sentence  accent.'^ 

It  is  possible  also  that  the  Old  Latin  synizesis  of  initial  iambic 
sequences  is  still  preserved  in  dudum  from  *diudum,  although  this 
derivation  was  too  confidently  assumed  by  me  in  Trans.  XXXVI, 
pp.  182  (183),  n.  3,  and  201.  The  du-  of  this  particle  is  usually 
referred  at  present  to  Lat.  d fir-are,  Gk.  ^v  {*Bfdv),  Brj-Od 
( Walde  Etym.  Wdrterb. s. v.;  Osthoff  Indogerm. Forsch.Y,  p. 280) , 
but  it  is  still  quite  possible  to  defend  the  earlier  derivation 
from  *diu-dum  (Fleckeisen  Jahrb.  CI  (1870),  p.  71;  Br^al  and 
Bailly  Dictionn.  StymoV,  p.  66;  Vanicek  Etym.  Wdrterb.,  p.  359). 
The  objection  of  Solmsen  {Stud.,  p.  196)  that  Latin  loses  the  d 
rather  than  the  j  of  the  initial  group  dj  is  entitled  to  serious  con- 
sideration, but  it  is  not  conclusive;  for  the  combination  dj  might 
be  variously  treated  in  Latin  under  the  influence  of  analogy  or  of 
dialectic  variation.  Compare  the  group  du  which  yields  appar- 
ently both  b  and  d  in  bimus,  dimus,  biennium,  diennium,  Umbr. 

>  See  example  in  Johnston  Metrical  Licenses  of  Vergil,  p.  16,  n.  2. 

2  Latin  popular  poetry,  on  the  other  hand,  always  retained  synizesis  in  a  larger 
circle  of  words ;  see  the  examples  in  Hodgman  Hare.  Stud.  IX,  pp.  144, 152, 160, 162 f. ; 
166.  This  later  synizesis  has  much  in  common  with  that  of  O.  Lat.,  but  it  is  no  longer 
restricted  to  iambic  words  and  word-beginnings,  and  often  resembles  externally  the 
Bo-called  synizesis  Chraecanica  {Trans.  XXXVI,  pp.  167  f.). 


HM^ 


166 


Robert  S.  Radfobd 


Notes  on  Latin  Synizesis 


167 


di-fue  *bifidum,'  etc.  {^io\z  Hisi,  Gramm.  I,  p.  304;  Buck  Gram- 
mar of  Oscan  and  Umbrian,  §  102.  3),  and  compare  the  late  and 
vulgar  double  forms  des,  zes  (Schuchardt  TI,  p.  445;  III,  p.  295), 
and  ies  (e.  g.,  Fabr.  viii.  41,  cited  by  Schuchardt  I  p.  69).' 

A  second  case  in  which  Old  Latin  synizesis  is  perhaps  to  be 
recognized  is  that  of  the  particle  jam,  which  is  most  probably  an 
ace.  sing.  fem.  from  the  pronominal  stem  i-  (Lindsay  Lat  Lang., 
p.  570;  Walde  Etym.  Wdrterb,,  p.  292;  Br^al  and  Bailly  Dictionn, 
6tymol.\  p.  140),  as  quam  and  tarn  are  ace.  sg.  fem.  from  the  pro- 
nominal stems  quo-  and  to-;  in  its  abverbial  use,  jam  should  be 
compared  especially  with  Old  Latin  em,  which  is  used  both  as  an 
ace.  sing.  m.  from  the  Ind.-Eur.  pronominal  stem  *e/o  (Walde  loc. 
cit,  s.  17.  'em')  and  as  an  adverb  with  the  meaning  of  Hum'  (Paul. 
Fest.  53.  37  Th.).^     If  we  assume  the  usual  derivation  of  jam 
from  the  pronominal  stem  -/-,  the  question  arises  whether  the 
consonantization  of  the  i  belongs  to  the  Italic  or  the  pre-Italic 
period.     Some  arguments  may  be  adduced  for  the  former  view, 
which  would  evidently  involve  the  operation  of  Old  Latin  synizesis. 
Although  the  ace.  sing.  fem.  is  usually  written  cam,  the  spelling 
tarn,  which  is  at  once  phonetic  and  original,  is  found  repeatedly 
in  the  MSS  of  Varro,  and  the  spelling  mm  is  found  in  a  Luceria 
inscription  (Neue  IF,  p.  381;  Lindsay  Lat,  Lang,,  p.  437).     On 
this  hypothesis  it  is  natural  that  the  original  initial  vowel  should 
be  consonantized  in  the  simple  adverb,  but,  in  agreement  with  the 
laws  of  Old  Latin  synizesis  {Trans.  XXXVI,  pp.  173  ff.,  183), 
that  it  should  be  fully  retained  wherever  it  ceases  to  be  initial. 
Thus,  in  not  admitting  synizesis,  the  compounds  etiam,  qmspmm, 
fispkim,  and  the  Old  Latin  quasi-compound  ?«7/ici«m  or  nunc  iam^ 

jz  uT^^l!"  '""ItI^^  compare  Aiutor  for  Adiutor,  OIL.  VI  3,  20752.  Schuchardt 
Vok.U  p.  68,  and  III,  p.  24,  cites  also  late  plebeian  occurrences  of  aiecit,  aiuncfa  and 
the  like. 

j» An  adverb  im,  the  ace.  of  is  (cf.  inter-im)  and  glossed  expressly  by  ^J5^,  Xo.ir6., 
te  still  recognized  by  Lindsay  Lat.  Lang.,  p.  4:^8,  and  Walde  loc.  cit.,  s.  v.  ^  em,'  but  the 
Corp.  Gloss.  Lat.  (II.  75,  36)  now  reads  here  i<Caym. 

«Langen  Beitrdge,  pp.  285  ff.,  seeks  to  show  (1)  that  there  is  a  trisyllabic  nunc-iam, 
which  m  sense  is  a  more  emphatic  nunc,  and  which  is  used  with  the  impv.  or  subj  in 
commands,  and  with  the  future;  (2)  that  there  are  two  separate  monosyllabic  words 
nunc  tarn,  which  mean  *now  at  last'  in  contrast  with  a  past  action,  and  are  used  with 
the  present  tense.  This  distinction  of  Langen's  has  been  accepted  by  several  editors 
of  Plautus,  e.  g.,  Gdtz  and  Sch611  in  edd.  mai.  and  min.,  Lindsay  {Cap.  vss.  266  and 


would  correspond  in  all  respects  to  d7itea,  postea,  exeat,  pridie, 
ideo,  pereo,  ab-eo  ad-eum  (loc.  cit.,  p.  173),  while  the  development 
of  I'am  would  only  have  gone  one  stage  further  than  that  of  the 
simple  (^i,  (^t,  die,  etc.  {loc.  cit.,  p.  210,  Add.  1).  Again  it  would 
not  be  necessary  on  this  hypothesis  to  explain  the  vocalization  of 
medial  j  in  etiam  and  nunciam,  which  the  current  derivation 
from  et+jam  and  nunc  +  jam  confidently  assumes,  but  for  which 
a  parallel  can  scarcely  be  found  in  historical  Latin  under  similar 
phonetic  conditions,  as  Birt  has  fully  pointed  out  {Rhein.  Mus. 
LI,  pp.  70  fF.)'  The  assumption  of  a  dissyllabic  or  only  quasi- 
monosyllabic  form  lam  in  the  Italic  period  seems,  however,  opposed 
by  the  form  of  the  compound  quoniam,  if  the  change  from  m  to  n 
in  this  particle  is  due,  as  is  commonly  assumed,  to  the  influence 
of  the  consonantal  spirant,  i.  e.,  quoniam  for  *quom-iam  as  venio 
for  *gvem.io  (Stolz  Lat.  LautU,  p.  87 ;  Walde  loc.  cit.,  s.  v.) .    It  is 

772),  Morris  (Tri.  3),  etc.    On  the  other  hand,  Ussing  (Amph.  prol.  38)  and  Skutsch 
{Forsch.,  p.  107)  unhesitatingly  reject  this  rule,  and  although  Brix  appears  to  accept 
Langen's  distinction  {Cap,  266),  he  disregards  it  in  practice,  introducing  nunc-iam 
with  the  present  by  conjecture  in  Cap.  772  stipplicfire  nfinc  <rifim>  certdmst  mihi.    Any 
one  who  will  turn  to  Langen's  own  discussion  will  find  that  he  cites  no  less  than  six 
examples  from  Plautus  of  nunc-ixim  with  the  present  tense ;  after  explaining  away  five 
of  these  examples  with  considerable  difficulty,  he  then  bases  his  distinction  upon  the 
one  remaining  example,  Cap.  266,  while,  according  to  his  own  admission,  the  proposed 
rule  does  not  hold  good  for  the  usage  of  Terence  {Eu.  561) !  Since  results  obtained  in 
this  arbitrary  fashion  are  of  little  value,  it  may  be  worthwhile  to  state  the  simple  facts 
of  Old  Latin  usage.     There  are  in  all  fifty-three  cases  of  trisyllabic  numi-iam  in 
Plautus,  twenty-eight  of  these  being  in  verse-closes  and  twenty-five  within  the  verse 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Plautus  MSS  offer  a  few  cases  also  of  dissyllabic  nunc-iam 
within  the  verse,  where  the  two  parts  are  not  separated  by  any  intervening  word.  Thus 
the  dissyllable  occurs  at  least  twice  with  the  impv. :  Au,  451  fte  sAne  n6nc-iam  intro 
<5mnes  (where  the  ed.  min.  brackets  iam) ;  Amph.  prol.  38  nunc-iam  htic  animum 
(5mnesqua6  loqufir  advdrtit^ ;  once  with  future:  Poe.  374  n6nc-iam  dehlnc  erit  verax 
tibi  (less  natural  is  the  scansion  of  the  ed.  min. :   ntinciAm  dehinc  ^rlt  verftx) ;  once 
with  the  present  indie. :  Cap.  266  ntinc-iam  ctiltros  fidtin6t.    In  short,  the  metrical 
treatment  of  nunc-iam  like  the  metrical  treatment  of  a-suo  {Trans.  XXXVI,  p.  175,  n.), 
is  wholly  independent  of  the  precise  meaning;  thus  we  find  trisyllabic  nuncidm  in  the 
sense  of  'now  at  last '  Ep.  135  iUlam  amabam  61im:  ntlnciam  ftlia  ctSra  imp^ndet 
p^ctori  (Langen :  olim:  nunc  iam,  but  cf .  Skutsch  Forsch.,  p.  107).   It  is  true,  of  course, 
that  nunc-iam  is  usually  trisyllabic,  that  it  is  used  chiefly  with  the  impv.  and  that  it 
18  commonly  equivalent  to  'a  strengthened  nunc,  but  no  other  part  of  Langen's  account 
appears  to  be  established.    Lindsay  {Bursian's  Jahresbericht  XXXIV  [1906],  p.  208  n.) 
apparently  still  accepts  Langen's  distinction  and  seeks  to  explain  away  its  difficulties 
but  his  discussion  shows  that  he  is  fully  aware  of  its  very  dubious  character.  ' 

iBirt  loc.  cit.,  p.  79,  states  the  rule  that  j  regulariy  maintains  itself  in  historical 
Latin  in  the  interior  of  words,  wherever  it  occurs  between  two  non-t-vowels. 


168 


Robert  S.  Radfobd 


perhaps  possible,  however,  that  the  change  of  m  to  n  in  qnoniam 
may  be  otherwise  explained.  Maurenbrecher  indeed  [Hiatus  im 
alien  Latein,  Leipzig,  1899,  p.  39,  n.  4,  and  p.  84)  has  boldly 
assumed  that  monosyllabic  words  in  m  had  already  developed  in 
Old  Latin  and  in  Plautus  a  hiatus  form  in  w,  and  he  finds  examples 
of  this  pronunciation  in  quouiam,  conauditus,  ciinere  {=conhereSj 
CIL.  VI  3282)  and  the  like,  as  well  as  in  Ital.  con  amove,  Fr. 
rien,  Span,  qnien.  This  view  scarcely  seems  supported  by  suffi- 
cient evidence,  and  still  another  explanation  of  the  change  may 
be  suggested  as  a  possible  one.  It  is  well  known  that  the  final  m 
of  monosyllabic  words  was  regularly  assimilated  to  the  initial  con- 
sonant of  a  following  word,  and  thus  freely  appeared  as  n  in  the 
proclitic  forms  con,  quon,  can,  qnen,  tan  and  the  like;  thus  we  find 
con  qua,  tan  dnrnm,  cnn  dies,  cnn  hijri,  etc.  (Schuchardt  Vok.  I, 
p.  117;  Corssen  I^  p.  26r>).  An  especially  notable  example  of 
the  assimilation  of  a  conjunction  quom  is  that  given  by  Cicero, 
Fam.  ix.  22.  2,  i.e.,  qnom  [cum)  nos  pronounced  nearly  as  cunnos 
(cf.  Birt  Ehein.  Mns.  LI  [1896],  pp.  94  f!.).  Hence  in  much  the 
same  way  that  an  independent  form  con  has  been  developed  in 
proclitic  use  from  the  preposition  com  [cum),  and  is  sometimes 
used  instead  of  the  latter  even  in  hiatus,*  we  may  perhaps  con- 
jecture that  a  proclitic  form  in  n  has  arisen  also  in  the  case  of  the 
conjunction  quom,  and  that  it  is  this  latter  which  appears  in  the 
compound  qnon-iamr  the  chief  difficulty  which  stands  in  the  way 
of  the  assumption  of  an  original  Old  Latin  form  Ham  would  thus 
be  removed. 

Elmira  College 

»E.  g.  conire,  Quint,  i.  6.  17  and  i.  5.  69:  conivola,  Paul.  Fest.  43.  8  Th.;  conin- 
quere,  id.  45. 11  Th. ;  although  Thewrewk  (Paul.  Fest.  46.  7)  now  reads  comauditum 
and  comangustatum  in  place  of  conauditmn  and  conangustatum  {id.  65.  8  Miill.). 

''Further  examples  of  the  manner  in  which  the  conjunction  quom  and  the  preposi- 
tion com  (quom)  have  influenced  each  other,  are  collected  by  Solmsen  Stud.  z.  lat. 
LautgeschiehUt^l% 


